Englebert

I agree with you REBgp. The GW "scientists" have been caught way more than once on fudging numbers. Another strong argument for questioning GW is that these so called scientists will not debate. If global warming was such a modern day crisis, why won't they debate it at every opportunity. There is a group of real climate scientists that have tried over and over for years to debate anyone who champions the global warming theories, and they have offered to pay for the debates. None of the frauds will take their challenge.

"Potential felon" sounds like there's a chance she is actually innoncent. I prefer the term "unconvicted felon".

Thanks TVC.

Does anyone know definitively if a CHL is required to carry a pistol in a boat or PWC in Texas? I put definitively because I asked this question to 2 game wardens and 1 police officer and they all had the same answer...they "thought" it was legal without a CHL.

I loved his response on Hannity (I think last night) in reference to him announcing he has formed an exploratory committee. Hannity said, "You know you're gonna get attacked by the media now." His response was, "I'd be disappointed if I wasn't."

  They have stated that on many occasions. And by many top officials...not some rogue low-level officials in Cincinnati.

  Iran definitely has a missile that can reach Israel and is capable of carrying a nuclear warhead. And according to this link, they may have, or have in development, one that can reach the U.S.   [Hidden Content]

  The article describes how the big bad businesses will pick and choose content, and says that the government will not allow this. What's to stop the government from picking and choosing content through regulation. When a business engages in this practice, a consumer can simply drop them and choose another ISP. (The article failed to mention that DishNet and DirecTV are available just about anywhere. Their services have limitations and we definitely need more competition.) But if government starts engaging in this practice (and they will), then the consumer loses. I think the best route would be to keep ISPs from throttling, but not to put the internet under Title II. Once under Title II, the internet belongs to the government. Don't get me wrong. I don't think that all of a sudden the internet in the US will resemble China, but a totally free and open internet will be something we can only tell our grandchildren about.

I've read (skimmed over at best) some articles a few months ago. All I can remember was that internet providers (AT&T, Verizon, etc) were against it and content providers (Netflix, Google, etc) were for it. Content providers were for it because IPs could not throttle their speed, and some other reasons I can't remember. IPs were against it because they said it would raise the cost to consumers, and some other reasons I can't remember. None of the articles I skimmed over explained how it would affect the consumer...me. One article said it was good for the consumer and a couple said it was bad for the consumer.    Having said that I really don't know the effect on consumers, I'm still thinking this is a bad idea. Frankly, I don't trust the government at all (and history shows good reason). I would be against this if my own dad were president, so this is not an Obama bashing reason. Many laws are passed with good intentions, then some yahoo congressmen re-interprets the law. So this may be a well-intentioned law designed to help consumers, but will be abused in short order. My assumption is that this law is to get the internet under the FCC banner, i.e. government control. Once under the FCC, then the government can start making regulation laws at will, starting with taxes. Of course, porn will probably be the next target. Then who knows what. But I'm positive I will not like it.   In addition to regulation, I'm sure the government will claim that since internet content falls under their banner, they are free to track, store and review all content. I'm guessing that they will threaten to block any internet providers that doesn't give the government full access to all of their data. No search warrants required.   Once under FCC regulation, the size of the FCC will have to expand dramatically, or a whole new agency will sprout up. I'm troubled to think about how many more government employees will be hired to regulate the internet. Hell, it will probably reach the size of Homeland Security.   This is all speculation on my part, but every time I try to like the government they give 10,000 reasons not to.

  How could you leave off the most prevalent stereotype of them all:   White people = racist

I am curious if Congress was informed of this. I remember quite a few of Congressmen running around on campaign speeches whaling about the unjust war and shouting to anyone who would listen about how they were lied to about the existence of "weapons of mass destruction". If they had knowledge of this program, should we hold impeachment proceedings for these folks?

That video is full of misleading half-truths and downright lies. I had to cut it off midway through it because it follows the tired old scheme of praying on the public naivety.   How come that (supposedly) 97% of "scientists/climatologists" agree man is causing harm to our earth through global warming, but not one will submit to an uncensored debate with "global warming deniers". (The 97% of agreement is probably the biggest lie in the video.) There is a group of climatoligists that have begged and offered to pay Al Gore and his legion of scientists a substantial amount of money for an uncensored/unscripted debate. Why do the "believers" always refuse? They just consistently say that the debate is over...which is as far from the truth as possible. They say that their research has been peer reviewed. The problem is that the "peers" are just other "believers". The "deniers" we are called are not deniers at all. We just ask to be shown empirical evidence that man is causing climate change (including data that hasn't been altered). The "believers" can't do it. So the "believers" resort to disparaging and belittling the skeptical.   They talk about how the ice is melting in the Artic, but yet never mention the growing volume of ice sheets in the Antarctic. They say the Earth is warming, but don't dare mention the fact that the Earth has NOT gotten warmer in the past 15 years. They espouse their global warming models, but don't dare speak about how every one of them (yes, every single one) has failed. Not only failed, but failed miserably. They don't ever mention the effect sun flares have on the planet. They don't even mention the effects of volcanic activity. But yet somehow the people who question them are somehow "less evolved".   And anyone who believes these piece-of-crap "climatologists", all you have to do is follow the money. In fact, by just doing a little research you can find more than enough evidence that refutes and puts into question every single talking point the "believers" can muster. I'm not going to post all the refuting links out there...they are easy to find. I've done the research years ago and have not seen anything since then that remotely resembles new or improved "evidence".

  Every SEC team not in the championship game gets 3 bye weeks. Their 3rd bye is during the SEC championship game. Same goes with every other conference in the nation. The Big12 doesn't have a championship game so they can spread their season out utilizing that extra week.   And speaking of a conference championship game, you've made several comments deriding the Big12 for not having one, saying it is hurting the conference. In reality, a conference championship game can be good sometimes and bad sometimes. For example, if you have a team ranked in the Top 4, but loses in the championship game, your conference can be without a representative in the playoffs. A conference with no conference championship game doesn't have to worry about that. On the other hand, if you have a team that's sitting at number 5 and beats a Top 10 team in the championship game, it could vault them into the Top 4...and into the playoffs. A conference with no championship game doesn't get the benefit of a late quality win. The championship game, or no championship game, can help or hurt your conference based on the circumstances at the end of the year.

  I highly doubt that. Little brother will always relish the chance to top big brother.

  My premiums went up 31% and my deductible went way way up. Every employee in the company I work for had their premiums and deductibles go up substantially more that in previous years. The company where I'm currently located has over 4000 employees and everyone's premiums and deductibles went substantially up. Many dropped their coverage. I know this for fact because I've been working with the Benefits Director on their 834 Benefits file. Contained in the letter that went out to all of the employees regarding the increase in premiums, was this little gem: "Due the changes in healthcare coverage under the Affordable Healthcare Law, a significant rise in the cost of coverage premiums is unavoidable..."   Every single person that I've talked to since the ACA was implemented has had their premiums go up. Until your statement, I have not heard of a single one going down. And based on your track record on here, I'm highly skeptical of anything you say. I decided to not respond to any of your posts a while back, but for some reason made an exception for this one. I will now resume my boycott of your posts.

The topic title was not misleading at all.That was hilarious!

  Was it same sex marriage? Oh wait, that was someone else.

I voted at the Nederland Rec. I reviewed my choices and they were correct. As I was walking out, I did hear a lady say "Hey, this is not right". She summoned a poll worker over to her machine. I did not see or hear anything else as I was already out the door. I didn't think much of it at the time, but I'm curious now if this had anything to do with the reporting of "miscalibrated" machines..

Will they be required to go through a background check like most employees?

  Wow. Disparaging of Baylor, when the Aggies have beaten only one FBS team with a winning record...Arkansas with their mammoth wins over Nichols St, Texas Tech and N. Illinois for a 3-2 record.

  My sentiments exactly.

He's fighting to get his "Worst President Ever" title back.

:lol:  :lol:  :lol:

I'm going with #3   3) Coach who has his secretary do push-ups with the kids

I went out about 10 to 12 times in the mid 80's.Never saw a thing. I went a few times with some Colmesniel folks and they had plenty of "first hand" stories to tell. Nothing ever happened though on any of my trips out there.